The bible may say it's wrong but there's outside historical evidence to prove parts of the bible. The bible is likely correct and you weren't really there. God was there to observe himself creating the universe and life on Earth.

The fossils only prove a flood, it likely threw them around. The transitional forms are likely just animals mix-breeding. Like how a liger is a mixbred tiger and lion.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

At 4/8/2015 2:01:45 PM, genesis01 wrote:The bible may say it's wrong but there's outside historical evidence to prove parts of the bible. The bible is likely correct and you weren't really there. God was there to observe himself creating the universe and life on Earth.

The fossils only prove a flood, it likely threw them around. The transitional forms are likely just animals mix-breeding. Like how a liger is a mixbred tiger and lion.

Sure, there's evidence that places like Egypt and Babylon existed, but that's about all you can get evidence for in the Bible. Try proving that a human can resurrect after three days of being dead, or that snakes and donkeys can talk.

At 4/8/2015 2:01:45 PM, genesis01 wrote:The bible may say it's wrong but there's outside historical evidence to prove parts of the bible. The bible is likely correct and you weren't really there. God was there to observe himself creating the universe and life on Earth.

The fossils only prove a flood, it likely threw them around. The transitional forms are likely just animals mix-breeding. Like how a liger is a mixbred tiger and lion.

So you're saying that fossils like tiktaalik are the result of a fish crawling into lad an having sex with a lizard?

At 4/8/2015 2:01:45 PM, genesis01 wrote:The bible may say it's wrong but there's outside historical evidence to prove parts of the bible. The bible is likely correct and you weren't really there. God was there to observe himself creating the universe and life on Earth.

Where's the "outside historical evidence" to prove the Creation story in the Bible? Where's the "outside historical evidence" to prove that God is/was even around in the first place?

The fossils only prove a flood, it likely threw them around. The transitional forms are likely just animals mix-breeding. Like how a liger is a mixbred tiger and lion.

A liger is a cross, not a species. A species is a group of organisms that only has the ability to produce fertile offspring by breeding within itself. Scientists can test for species using that definition... I'll leave it to your imagination how they do it. In other words, you can produce ligers, but the only way they can become a species is through evolution. So no, it wasn't cross-breeding between species that produced such genetic variation- it was evolution. I learned that in a high-school biology class.

The fossils show many floods. So far, no one's found the remnants of an ark. And if the ark touched down on a mountain in Turkey, why doesn't the fossil record show long lines of dead kangaroos that tried to make their way to Australia? What about long lines of dead pandas that tried to make their way to China? What of the elephants?

One man putting two of each land animal species currently on earth into a wooden boat in the Stone Age is nowhere near as evidenced as evolution is. The only historical record that shows that that kind of boat technology even existed in the Stone Age is the same book that instructs followers to burn dove entrails as atonement to a deity that does not reveal itself but asks for faith in it regardless.

At 4/8/2015 2:01:45 PM, genesis01 wrote:The bible may say it's wrong but there's outside historical evidence to prove parts of the bible. The bible is likely correct and you weren't really there. God was there to observe himself creating the universe and life on Earth.

Where's the "outside historical evidence" to prove the Creation story in the Bible? Where's the "outside historical evidence" to prove that God is/was even around in the first place?

The fossils only prove a flood, it likely threw them around. The transitional forms are likely just animals mix-breeding. Like how a liger is a mixbred tiger and lion.

A liger is a cross, not a species. A species is a group of organisms that only has the ability to produce fertile offspring by breeding within itself. Scientists can test for species using that definition... I'll leave it to your imagination how they do it. In other words, you can produce ligers, but the only way they can become a species is through evolution. So no, it wasn't cross-breeding between species that produced such genetic variation- it was evolution. I learned that in a high-school biology class.

The fossils show many floods. So far, no one's found the remnants of an ark. And if the ark touched down on a mountain in Turkey, why doesn't the fossil record show long lines of dead kangaroos that tried to make their way to Australia? What about long lines of dead pandas that tried to make their way to China? What of the elephants?

One man putting two of each land animal species currently on earth into a wooden boat in the Stone Age is nowhere near as evidenced as evolution is. The only historical record that shows that that kind of boat technology even existed in the Stone Age is the same book that instructs followers to burn dove entrails as atonement to a deity that does not reveal itself but asks for faith in it regardless.

To say nothing of the fact that a global flood that sloshed around all water on the surface of Earth would have ruined all sources of freshwater on the surface, destroying enormous numbers of species.

Yes, we think we're right because we have proven hypotheses, the fossil record, extensive knowledge of DNA, etc. You most likely think you're right because you have your creation stories. We have our things and you have yours, and yes, we evolutionists think we are right.

Yes, we think we're right because we have proven hypotheses, the fossil record, extensive knowledge of DNA, etc. You most likely think you're right because you have your creation stories. We have our things and you have yours, and yes, we evolutionists think we are right.

Fossils show organisms as sharks, bacteria etc being not much different from their living counterparts. Where DNA sequences don't match phylogenies based on morphology evolutionists play deaf and dumb, your hypotheses run counter to facts like species always reproducing after their like. it's a pity so many minds rot away believing such nonsense.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

Yes, we think we're right because we have proven hypotheses, the fossil record, extensive knowledge of DNA, etc. You most likely think you're right because you have your creation stories. We have our things and you have yours, and yes, we evolutionists think we are right.

Fossils show organisms as sharks, bacteria etc being not much different from their living counterparts. Where DNA sequences don't match phylogenies based on morphology evolutionists play deaf and dumb, your hypotheses run counter to facts like species always reproducing after their like. it's a pity so many minds rot away believing such nonsense.

1.) Please demonstrate with a scientific argument and evidence the basis for claiming that fossile species you cite are "not much different"; pay particular attention to ways in which they are dissimilar, and ways in which you cannot tell due to the fossilisation process.

2.) Please explain the logical reasoning for implying such examples are not consistent with an evolutionary paradigm, and why it breaks expected or outlined evolutionary processes.

3.) Please cite examples where phylogenies and morphologies "Do not match", clarifying how they do not match, the significance of their lack of match; and a naunced explanation of how such a lack of match implicitly causes an invalidation of the currently defined twin nested heirarchy.

Until such time, the response is a simple:

Fossils show organisms as sharks, bacteria etc being not much different from their living counterparts. So? Where DNA sequences don't match phylogenies based on morphology evolutionists play deaf and dumb No they don't, your hypotheses run counter to facts like species always reproducing after their like no it doesn't. it's a pity so many minds rot away believing such nonsense It appears Ranty McRantRant has no argument